Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
QotW10: There's Me, and then there's MEEEE
Living one life is hard enough. Having to live a Second Life (SL) – is it necessary? Games are not my forte, but the idea of exploring a virtual world is certainly intriguing, so I gave it a shot. Although I have to admit that SL is less a game, and more of living another life.
There were many obstacles to overcome from the very beginning. I had trouble registering, and then I had problems teleporting out of the orientation island. However, after these problems were settled, it seemed easier to maneuver around SL.
Other than just lying around, which I did quite a bit, I also enjoyed the free food fare that was available at every corner. There was a variety of sandwiches and ice cream to choose from and I thought to myself: this is heaven.
There were many obstacles to overcome from the very beginning. I had trouble registering, and then I had problems teleporting out of the orientation island. However, after these problems were settled, it seemed easier to maneuver around SL.
One of the first places I explored was the Hauwai zoo, a zoo that was beautifully created. (Above is a broad view of the zoo) I was amazed at the details of the place. Also, I could not believe that such a zoo could be created virtually. It was amazing. There were many animals, such as parrots, zebras and monkeys.
I was the only visitor at the zoo at that time, so I had a free reign at exploring the zoo. I petted the monkeys ( that would be the closest I would be to a monkey in my real life) and stood close to the zebras. I don't think I would ever touch a monkey in a real life, but the idea of my avatar (which is actually represeting me) touching a monkey can give me the chills.
Of all the places I explored my favourite would be Dahab, Sinhai in Egypt. What attracted me to the place was the fact that it was in Egypt, and the tagline was a place to relax. With such a hectic schedule between school, work and family, my real self has barely any time to rest. So I figured it would interesting for my virtual self to rest and relax on my behalf. 
When I got there, I was amazed. it definately was not the Egypt that I expected. but it certainly was paradise. I certainly could relax at a place like this, and I did.
Other than just lying around, which I did quite a bit, I also enjoyed the free food fare that was available at every corner. There was a variety of sandwiches and ice cream to choose from and I thought to myself: this is heaven.
And if you are lazy to walk, no worries. There was a horse that you could around
the area.
the area. Trying to create an avatar that is similar to you is certainly no easy task. After awhile, I started to question the finer details of my features.
However, the ability to create your own avatar is certainly a way to express yourelf. For example, you could satisfy inner desires in regards to your features, or you could experriment with looks and styles to find something that suits you the best. 
More than anything second life allows you to create a life you desire, where you can do whatever you want, whenever you want as long as it doesn;t hurt the other gamers. You have no one to answer to, except yourself. Only you can control yourself.
This assignment was certainly fun, as the first hand experience makes ie easier to express one's self.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Qotw9: The commoners as journalists?
As a child, I remember journalism being an exclusive thing. It was something that only a few could do, and becoming a journalist was not an easy goal for many. During the rare occasions when I actually the news, I remember wondering how these reporters were fortunate to be journalists. At that time, it was almost impossible to be recognized as a worthy journalist. Now, fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, things have changed tremendously. It is hard to imagine we commonfolk as journalists.
Citizen journalism is now fast invading our lives. Citizen journalism involves citizens actively reporting, analyzing and sharing news and information. (Citizen Journalism, 2007) This means that you don’t have to be a professional journalist to report the latest on-goings. You can share your views with the world from the comfort of your own home. The more common versions of citizen journalism are in the form of weblog and posting videos online. Through theses two mediums, people report their perspective of what is going on, and share their opinions in the situation. This is different from traditional journalist as citizens are not required to remain objective.
STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print) is a venture of Singapore Press Holdings. It’s main aim is for Singaporeans to actively be a part of Singapore’s current affairs through the mediums of print, online and mobile. (Stomp, 2006) Through these mediums, Singaporeans can send their thoughts and ideas to the Straits Times directly, and hopefully allow them to be more involved in the news media.
However, can STOMP be considered as an ideal form of citizen journalism? There are many features that STOMP provides. It allows citizens to rate and review movies and games, and even has sections catered to various groups of interest. However the idea behind citizen journalism is not about controlling what the citizens have to say.
Instead as Dan Gillmor pointed out “I like the idea that people are watching what I say and correcting me if I get things wrong—or challenging my conclusions, based on the same facts (or facts I hadn’t known about when I wrote the piece.) This is a piece of tomorrow’s journalism, and we in the business should welcome the feedback and assistance that, if we do it right, becomes part of a larger conversation.”(2004)
STOMP certainly encourages citizens to start being active in the local news situation. This is a start for Singaporeans to be more open and less restrictive about their opinions. The world is changing, and Singaporeans should adapt to the changes. There is no point in being left behind. What is more important is that there is Singaporeans need to understand their rights as citizen journalists, and not abuse those rights.
STOMP is a fairly new venture. So we’ll just have to wait and see if there STOMP can meet its purpose. The best way is for STOMP to reach out to more citizens and prove that they do not restrict the citizen’s right to express themselves. This is just the beginning.
References
“Citizen journalism” (March 28, 2006) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved 14:59, March 28, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Gillmor, D. “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (July, 2004). Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?hile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap9
STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/
Citizen journalism is now fast invading our lives. Citizen journalism involves citizens actively reporting, analyzing and sharing news and information. (Citizen Journalism, 2007) This means that you don’t have to be a professional journalist to report the latest on-goings. You can share your views with the world from the comfort of your own home. The more common versions of citizen journalism are in the form of weblog and posting videos online. Through theses two mediums, people report their perspective of what is going on, and share their opinions in the situation. This is different from traditional journalist as citizens are not required to remain objective.
STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print) is a venture of Singapore Press Holdings. It’s main aim is for Singaporeans to actively be a part of Singapore’s current affairs through the mediums of print, online and mobile. (Stomp, 2006) Through these mediums, Singaporeans can send their thoughts and ideas to the Straits Times directly, and hopefully allow them to be more involved in the news media.
However, can STOMP be considered as an ideal form of citizen journalism? There are many features that STOMP provides. It allows citizens to rate and review movies and games, and even has sections catered to various groups of interest. However the idea behind citizen journalism is not about controlling what the citizens have to say.
Instead as Dan Gillmor pointed out “I like the idea that people are watching what I say and correcting me if I get things wrong—or challenging my conclusions, based on the same facts (or facts I hadn’t known about when I wrote the piece.) This is a piece of tomorrow’s journalism, and we in the business should welcome the feedback and assistance that, if we do it right, becomes part of a larger conversation.”(2004)
STOMP certainly encourages citizens to start being active in the local news situation. This is a start for Singaporeans to be more open and less restrictive about their opinions. The world is changing, and Singaporeans should adapt to the changes. There is no point in being left behind. What is more important is that there is Singaporeans need to understand their rights as citizen journalists, and not abuse those rights.
STOMP is a fairly new venture. So we’ll just have to wait and see if there STOMP can meet its purpose. The best way is for STOMP to reach out to more citizens and prove that they do not restrict the citizen’s right to express themselves. This is just the beginning.
References
“Citizen journalism” (March 28, 2006) From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved 14:59, March 28, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
Gillmor, D. “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (July, 2004). Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?hile=WeTheMedia.html&tipe=text/html#chap9
STOMP (2006) From Singapore Press HoldingsRetrieved March 28, 2007 fromhttp://www.stomp.com.sg/
Thursday, March 15, 2007
QotW: What are you doing now?
What are you doing?
This is a common question that we utter more than once a day. We might be chatting online or on the telephone, and we almost never fail to ask this question to the person who we are communicating with. Now, there is a community that is created based on this question. Innovative.
Twitter certainly has an interesting concept. We tend to be curious about what our friends are doing at a particular time, and by getting them to share their current activities, we learn more about them. Although it is strange to randomly share what you are doing, after a while answering the exact same question seems to come almost naturally. Twitter allows people to immediately send out what they are thinking.
Is Twitter really an online community? According to Twitter’s own home page, it considers itself as a community. An online community is a group of people that may or may not mainly communicate or interact via the Internet. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, it is not easy to completely describe how an online community works and what it represents. It is not necessary that participants of an online community feel a strong bond towards each other. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, a relationship is formed through their continuous interactions. Twitter allows people to interact with one another online, and therefore allow people to form bonds, whether strong or not, with one another. In that sense, Twitter is an online community.
One of the most significant things in any community, whether online or offline, is communication. (Fernback & Thompson, 1995) It is practically impossible to maintain a relationship without any form of communication. This is because there is no effort taking place to organize the social relationships that form the community. Fernback and Thompson also feel that communities can be limited by boundaries, and these communities can be created based on common interests and people.
At the same time, sociologists also realize that distance does not put a hamper on forming communities. Transport and technology provide people the means for expanding their communities beyond just their neighborhood. In online communities, people are not restricted by their physical boundaries. But at the same time, online communities have a “home” where all users can meet and interact.
However, Twitter may not be for everyone. It can be annoying after awhile to answer the same question over and over and over again. Although it may be interesting to read what others are doing, it might be taxing to let others know what you are doing. In a way, it seems like Twitter is just another MSN. You are chatting with your friends and adding new ones.
Twitter may be a unique experience initially. As an online community, it is similar to Friendster and MSN, but the features are limited. It would not be surprising however, if it upgrades features to be more like a combination of both Friendster and MSN.
Resources:
Fernback.J & Thompson.B (May 1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved on March 15, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
Virtual community. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:52, March 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=113387826
This is a common question that we utter more than once a day. We might be chatting online or on the telephone, and we almost never fail to ask this question to the person who we are communicating with. Now, there is a community that is created based on this question. Innovative.
Twitter certainly has an interesting concept. We tend to be curious about what our friends are doing at a particular time, and by getting them to share their current activities, we learn more about them. Although it is strange to randomly share what you are doing, after a while answering the exact same question seems to come almost naturally. Twitter allows people to immediately send out what they are thinking.
Is Twitter really an online community? According to Twitter’s own home page, it considers itself as a community. An online community is a group of people that may or may not mainly communicate or interact via the Internet. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, it is not easy to completely describe how an online community works and what it represents. It is not necessary that participants of an online community feel a strong bond towards each other. (Virtual Community, 2007) However, a relationship is formed through their continuous interactions. Twitter allows people to interact with one another online, and therefore allow people to form bonds, whether strong or not, with one another. In that sense, Twitter is an online community.
One of the most significant things in any community, whether online or offline, is communication. (Fernback & Thompson, 1995) It is practically impossible to maintain a relationship without any form of communication. This is because there is no effort taking place to organize the social relationships that form the community. Fernback and Thompson also feel that communities can be limited by boundaries, and these communities can be created based on common interests and people.
At the same time, sociologists also realize that distance does not put a hamper on forming communities. Transport and technology provide people the means for expanding their communities beyond just their neighborhood. In online communities, people are not restricted by their physical boundaries. But at the same time, online communities have a “home” where all users can meet and interact.
However, Twitter may not be for everyone. It can be annoying after awhile to answer the same question over and over and over again. Although it may be interesting to read what others are doing, it might be taxing to let others know what you are doing. In a way, it seems like Twitter is just another MSN. You are chatting with your friends and adding new ones.
Twitter may be a unique experience initially. As an online community, it is similar to Friendster and MSN, but the features are limited. It would not be surprising however, if it upgrades features to be more like a combination of both Friendster and MSN.
Resources:
Fernback.J & Thompson.B (May 1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Retrieved on March 15, 2007, from http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
Virtual community. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:52, March 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_community&oldid=113387826
Thursday, March 8, 2007
QotW6: Privacy or Paranoia?
If anyone had asked me in secondary school whether I intended to share my private self with the world, I would have certainly said no. Tell strangers about myself? No way!
Now, I have to eat my own words. I have to say that my opinion has not completely changed since then. However, I know and accept that complete privacy from people, even strangers, is entirely impossible. Being affiliated with services that permit us to divulge personal information about oneself puts privacy out of the picture. However, each and every one of us has the ability to control exactly how much information we expose to the public. It is our own ability to decide what level of privacy we are willing to give up.
So what exactly is privacy?
Privacy refers to the capacity for an individual (or a group) to remain out public scrutiny. Their personal information and lives are not kept in the limelight. (Privacy, 2007) Is it always easy to remain private? The truth is that it is not easy. Every single signal that we send out, whether it is in online or offline situations, reveals something about us. There is an extremely thin line between public and private circumstances.
Trust and Privacy
When do we let down our guard and reveal personal tidbits about ourselves? In today’s society, it has become a necessity to prove one’s trustworthiness constantly. (Rosen, 2004) We are constantly emitting signals that ensure others that we are being truthful, and the best way to do that would be to divulge personal information. It is similar to tit-for-tat situation.
But are we really telling the truth?
I wouldn’t say that I am a completely private person. There are a select few who know me inside out, and then there are others who know general common things about me. So I guess I can safely say that I have a control over the amount personal information I reveal. The issue of trust is significant to me. Like anybody else, I wouldn’t want to share personal things about myself to people who I find hard to trust.
To prove to myself that I really do not reveal anything personal about myself, I went to check my FRIENDSTER profile. I realized that I hadn’t exactly updated my personal profile in a year, and the previous time I had logged on to update my profile, it was actually to remove some information from my profile. As I tried to recall the exact reason as to why I had done such a thing, I realized that my main motivation was because that I shared too much information about myself. Looking at what was left on my profile, I realized the information that I had chosen to share were general things that people will discover about me within the first few days that they have met me. So does this truly mean that I am a private person? Or do I reveal too much?
Is anything private?
When I thought about my profile more, I realized that I never really bothered with my privacy as much as I thought I had. Although I do remain anonymous when I choose to view my friends’ profiles, I never actually selected the option that allows us to set our personnel profiles for private use only. In that sense, aren’t I actually putting myself in the limelight?
The act of giving your telephone number to the store clerk may seem insignificant, but you will never know when information that you had just given out might be used against you. (Sullivan, 2007) Similarly, I may have thought that the information I have placed on my FRIENDSTER profile might be unimportant, but I will never know for certain if this information will come back to haunt me in the future. So maybe I should just leave my profile empty.
Privacy or Paranoia? Now that’s another issue altogether.
References
Privacy. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy&oldid=113354124
Rosen, J. (2004, 19 July). The Naked Crowd. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from the http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
Sullivan, B. (2007, 17 October). Privacy Lost: Does anybody care? Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Now, I have to eat my own words. I have to say that my opinion has not completely changed since then. However, I know and accept that complete privacy from people, even strangers, is entirely impossible. Being affiliated with services that permit us to divulge personal information about oneself puts privacy out of the picture. However, each and every one of us has the ability to control exactly how much information we expose to the public. It is our own ability to decide what level of privacy we are willing to give up.
So what exactly is privacy?
Privacy refers to the capacity for an individual (or a group) to remain out public scrutiny. Their personal information and lives are not kept in the limelight. (Privacy, 2007) Is it always easy to remain private? The truth is that it is not easy. Every single signal that we send out, whether it is in online or offline situations, reveals something about us. There is an extremely thin line between public and private circumstances.
Trust and Privacy
When do we let down our guard and reveal personal tidbits about ourselves? In today’s society, it has become a necessity to prove one’s trustworthiness constantly. (Rosen, 2004) We are constantly emitting signals that ensure others that we are being truthful, and the best way to do that would be to divulge personal information. It is similar to tit-for-tat situation.
But are we really telling the truth?
I wouldn’t say that I am a completely private person. There are a select few who know me inside out, and then there are others who know general common things about me. So I guess I can safely say that I have a control over the amount personal information I reveal. The issue of trust is significant to me. Like anybody else, I wouldn’t want to share personal things about myself to people who I find hard to trust.
To prove to myself that I really do not reveal anything personal about myself, I went to check my FRIENDSTER profile. I realized that I hadn’t exactly updated my personal profile in a year, and the previous time I had logged on to update my profile, it was actually to remove some information from my profile. As I tried to recall the exact reason as to why I had done such a thing, I realized that my main motivation was because that I shared too much information about myself. Looking at what was left on my profile, I realized the information that I had chosen to share were general things that people will discover about me within the first few days that they have met me. So does this truly mean that I am a private person? Or do I reveal too much?
Is anything private?
When I thought about my profile more, I realized that I never really bothered with my privacy as much as I thought I had. Although I do remain anonymous when I choose to view my friends’ profiles, I never actually selected the option that allows us to set our personnel profiles for private use only. In that sense, aren’t I actually putting myself in the limelight?
The act of giving your telephone number to the store clerk may seem insignificant, but you will never know when information that you had just given out might be used against you. (Sullivan, 2007) Similarly, I may have thought that the information I have placed on my FRIENDSTER profile might be unimportant, but I will never know for certain if this information will come back to haunt me in the future. So maybe I should just leave my profile empty.
Privacy or Paranoia? Now that’s another issue altogether.
References
Privacy. (2007, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy&oldid=113354124
Rosen, J. (2004, 19 July). The Naked Crowd. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from the http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA5FF.htm
Sullivan, B. (2007, 17 October). Privacy Lost: Does anybody care? Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Saturday, February 10, 2007
QotW4: I Scratch Your Back, You Scratch Mine…
“Thank you!”
This is what we say whenever someone does a favor for us. However for most of us, ‘thanks’ is just not enough to show our appreciation. We want to be able to repay the act of kindness in one form or another. So we perform a similar act, or we render services that will be useful to that person.
What is a ‘Gift Economy?’
It is not uncommon for people to have the mistaken notion that economy is all about buying and selling. Often, when people come across the idea of economy, they always relate it to money. However, not all economies revolve around actual cash. In the gift economy, money cannot buy you anything much. But something else can.
In the gift economy, people have the ability to exchange, instead of trade, products and services, without prior agreement. (Gift Economy, 2007) In other words, people can share their knowledge without any expectation of a similar action. There is no demand of reciprocation, or even a mere ‘thank you’. In a certain way, the sharing is done for the benefit for others; and no gain for oneself. The ‘gift’ can be anything. More commonly, it refers to the sharing of knowledge and information.
Status in the gift economy is not dependent on what you possess, but what you are willing to share. This makes sense. Nobody will be aware of the knowledge you possess, unless you share it. The more you contribute, the more recognized you become. Author Lewis Hyde recognized this attribute. In his book The Gift: The Erotic Life of Property, he states that “status is accorded to those who give to others the most”. (Pinchot, 1995)
Hence, the gift economy is also known as a forum for sharing.
The gift economy is increasingly prevalent in the World Wide Web in today’s society. There is no doubt that the gift economy is not something that is going to disappear anytime soon. Seeking information on the Internet has become second nature to most of us. We are unduly grateful to those who can provide the information that we are searching for.
However, most of the time we do not know the identity of those who have shared the information. It’s strange to think about strangers helping us. But essentially that is the truth. It is not uncommon in the gift economy for strangers to share information.
Motivations
Helping strangers? No way!
It is almost impossible to imagine a stranger who is willing to help another stranger. As it is, people are usually hesitant to share information with people they personally know. The certainty of the receiver’s anonymity makes it unbelievable that people want to share vital information with people who they might never know. (Kollock, 1999) So why would they want to share knowledge with strangers?
The most significant reason is anticipated reciprocity. The possibility that the receiver of the information would also share useful information can motivate a person to contribute. (Kollock, 1999) Another reason would be status. People who are recognized for their contributions would be credited for the information that they have provided. In certain communities, people will rise the ranks in that community in relation to the contributions that they have made. There are many motivating factors that urge people to share information. However, these two are the more prominent reasons.
Discuss Cooking
Internet forums are an example of online gift economies. An Internet forum is basically a message board or a discussion group where people of similar interests get together to discuss and contribute ideas. There are forums for many different topics. (Internet forums, 2007)
I have an interest in cooking, especially baking. I came across this forum called ‘Discuss Cooking’, which basically does what the name of the forum says – discuss cooking. It is a forum created for people to share cooking recipes, tips and ideas. (Exchange of information)
One interesting thing about this forum is the status each member has in this little ‘society’. As mentioned earlier, status in the gift economy is a reflection of how much a person contributes. In the ‘Discuss Cooking’ forum, status is as follows.
Less than 50 posts = Assistant Cook
Less than 100 posts = Cook
Less than 500 posts = Senior Cook
Less than 1000 posts = Sous Chef
Less than 2500 posts = Executive Chef
Less than 5000 posts = Certified Executive Chef
More than 5000 posts = Certified Master Chef
The more one contributes, the higher they are ranked, and certainly they seem to have more significance in the community.
Everyone in this community happily answer each other’s queries, no matter how silly the question may be. They do not expect any monetary gain from their contributions. In fact, they are contend with sharing their knowledge with others, and similarly gain knowledge from others as well.
The people in this community are basically strangers from all over the world, who are linked together by their passion for cooking. However that does not stop them from sharing specialized information with one another. With this forum, and other similar forums, the gift economy is certainly becoming a global gift economy.
Conclusion
I’ll scratch your back, and you’ll scratch mine, and all of us will be satisfied.
Resources
Gift economy. (2007, February 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:01, February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971
Internet forum. (2007, February 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:21, February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_forum&oldid=106013835
Kollock, Peter (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace" Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm
Pinchot, Gifford (1995). "The Gift Economy" Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm
This is what we say whenever someone does a favor for us. However for most of us, ‘thanks’ is just not enough to show our appreciation. We want to be able to repay the act of kindness in one form or another. So we perform a similar act, or we render services that will be useful to that person.
What is a ‘Gift Economy?’
It is not uncommon for people to have the mistaken notion that economy is all about buying and selling. Often, when people come across the idea of economy, they always relate it to money. However, not all economies revolve around actual cash. In the gift economy, money cannot buy you anything much. But something else can.In the gift economy, people have the ability to exchange, instead of trade, products and services, without prior agreement. (Gift Economy, 2007) In other words, people can share their knowledge without any expectation of a similar action. There is no demand of reciprocation, or even a mere ‘thank you’. In a certain way, the sharing is done for the benefit for others; and no gain for oneself. The ‘gift’ can be anything. More commonly, it refers to the sharing of knowledge and information.
Status in the gift economy is not dependent on what you possess, but what you are willing to share. This makes sense. Nobody will be aware of the knowledge you possess, unless you share it. The more you contribute, the more recognized you become. Author Lewis Hyde recognized this attribute. In his book The Gift: The Erotic Life of Property, he states that “status is accorded to those who give to others the most”. (Pinchot, 1995)
Hence, the gift economy is also known as a forum for sharing.
The gift economy is increasingly prevalent in the World Wide Web in today’s society. There is no doubt that the gift economy is not something that is going to disappear anytime soon. Seeking information on the Internet has become second nature to most of us. We are unduly grateful to those who can provide the information that we are searching for.
However, most of the time we do not know the identity of those who have shared the information. It’s strange to think about strangers helping us. But essentially that is the truth. It is not uncommon in the gift economy for strangers to share information.
Motivations
Helping strangers? No way!
It is almost impossible to imagine a stranger who is willing to help another stranger. As it is, people are usually hesitant to share information with people they personally know. The certainty of the receiver’s anonymity makes it unbelievable that people want to share vital information with people who they might never know. (Kollock, 1999) So why would they want to share knowledge with strangers?
The most significant reason is anticipated reciprocity. The possibility that the receiver of the information would also share useful information can motivate a person to contribute. (Kollock, 1999) Another reason would be status. People who are recognized for their contributions would be credited for the information that they have provided. In certain communities, people will rise the ranks in that community in relation to the contributions that they have made. There are many motivating factors that urge people to share information. However, these two are the more prominent reasons.
Discuss Cooking
Internet forums are an example of online gift economies. An Internet forum is basically a message board or a discussion group where people of similar interests get together to discuss and contribute ideas. There are forums for many different topics. (Internet forums, 2007)
I have an interest in cooking, especially baking. I came across this forum called ‘Discuss Cooking’, which basically does what the name of the forum says – discuss cooking. It is a forum created for people to share cooking recipes, tips and ideas. (Exchange of information)
One interesting thing about this forum is the status each member has in this little ‘society’. As mentioned earlier, status in the gift economy is a reflection of how much a person contributes. In the ‘Discuss Cooking’ forum, status is as follows.
Less than 50 posts = Assistant Cook
Less than 100 posts = Cook
Less than 500 posts = Senior Cook
Less than 1000 posts = Sous Chef
Less than 2500 posts = Executive Chef
Less than 5000 posts = Certified Executive Chef
More than 5000 posts = Certified Master Chef
The more one contributes, the higher they are ranked, and certainly they seem to have more significance in the community.
Everyone in this community happily answer each other’s queries, no matter how silly the question may be. They do not expect any monetary gain from their contributions. In fact, they are contend with sharing their knowledge with others, and similarly gain knowledge from others as well.
The people in this community are basically strangers from all over the world, who are linked together by their passion for cooking. However that does not stop them from sharing specialized information with one another. With this forum, and other similar forums, the gift economy is certainly becoming a global gift economy.
Conclusion
I’ll scratch your back, and you’ll scratch mine, and all of us will be satisfied.
Resources
Gift economy. (2007, February 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:01, February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971
Internet forum. (2007, February 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:21, February 9, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_forum&oldid=106013835
Kollock, Peter (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace" Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm
Pinchot, Gifford (1995). "The Gift Economy" Retrieved February 8, 2007 from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)